TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....forty seven thousand three hundred eighty four only) is confirmed against M/s. Maheshraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. 4.2 The differential amount of drawback amounting to Rs. 9,47,371/- (Nine lakhs forty seven thousand three hundred seventy one only) paid by M/s. Maheshraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., is ordered to be adjusted against the above demand. 4.3 M/s. Maheshraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. should pay interest at the prescribed rate under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 read with Section 75A of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.4 The exported goods under claim of drawback v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under column 'B' of schedule of Drawback. When this mistake was pointed out to the appellant, they have paid back excess Drawback of Rs. 9,47,371/- during the period of April to July, 2007. Subsequently, the Revenue issued a show cause notice F. No. S/12-Gen-603/2008 DBK, dated 5-1-2009, proposing demand of differential Draw back amount of Rs. 9,47,384/- under Rule 16 of Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995; adjusted amount of Rs. 9,47,371/- already paid as differential Drawback; confirmed confiscation of the goods valued Rs. 2,37,23,282/- under Section 113(h)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and demand of interest under Rule 16 of the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be imposed only on the act or omission, which rendered goods liable for confiscation under Section 113 of Customs Act, 1962. As submitted above, since goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 113(ii), consequently, penalty under Section 114(iii) is also not imposable. He admits that interest is payable on the Drawback. 4. Shri. Senthil Nathan, ld. Dy. Commissioner (AR) reiterates the findings of the Order-in-Original. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. There is no dispute even by the appellant regarding excess Drawback sanctioned and demand of interest thereon. It is also fact that the appellant has admittedly paid back Drawback amount before the issuance of show cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (235) E.L.T. 623 (Tri.-LB) - Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. CC. EX. & Cus., Nasik, it was held :- 9. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in Raja Impex case (supra), has rendered decision on identical issue. One of the substantial questions of law placed before the High Court by the department was whether redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act could be imposed where the goods were neither available for confiscation nor cleared under bond/undertaking. The Hon'ble High Court followed the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in Weston Components case and held that, as the goods in question had been allowed to be cleared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fine. 13. The reliance of learned counsel for the Revenue upon the provisions of Section 125 of the Act is also misconceived. Section 125 of the Act is applicable only in those cases which have been cleared by the concerned authorities subject to furnishing undertaking/bond etc. However, in the present case, admittedly, the goods were cleared by the respondent-authorities without execution of any bond/undertaking by the assessee. Thus, in view of the fact and circumstances of the case, we find no error in the impugned orders. No substantial question of law arises for our determination in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed." (emphasis supplied.) 10. We have also particularly noted a decision of the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Madras High Court in Venus Enterprises case ceases to be good law on the point. It may be noted contextually that the dismissal, by the Apex Court, of the SLP filed by M/s. Venus Enterprises did not have the effect of enhancing the precedent value of the High Court's decision in that case. 11. It is nobody's case that a binding judicial authority on the question of imposability of fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act in lieu of confiscation of goods not available for confiscation would not be applicable where the similar question arises as to whether a fine could be imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (read with Section 34 of the Central Excise Act) in lieu of confiscation of excisable goods not available fo....